_ 


(V 0 L 
Aw o t 


GLi :: ' k : 

— ; — 


o 

** .r ii,u >s. 


? v 7 

<jO V v / 


in 


Cs,.'if 

/ T 


ADDRESS 


PREPARED FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING 


OF THE 


New York . 

Civil-Service Reform Association 


(MAY 1, 1889), 


5*5 


BY THE PRESIDENT 


GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS 




. 


NEW YORK: 

PUBLISHED FOR THE 

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION 

1889. 









Publications of the National Civil-Service Reform League 


Proceedings at the Annual Meeting of the National Civil-Service 
Reform League, 1882 , with address by George William Curtis. 
Per copy, io cts. 

The same for_l 884. Per copy, io cts. Per ioo, 

The same for 1885. Per copy, io cts. Per ioo, 

The same for 1886. Per copy, 8 cts. Per ioo, 

The same for 1887 . Per copy, 8 cts. Per ioo, 

The same for 1888. Per copy, 12 cts. 

The Year’s Work in Civil-Service Reform. (Address of 1884 .) By 

George William Curtis. Per copy, 3 cts. Per 100, . $2 50 

Civil Service Reform under the present National Administration. 

(Address of 1885.) By George William Curtis. Per copy, 3 cts. 
Per 100, . ..S2 50 

The Situation. (Address of 1886.) By George William Curtis. Per 
copy, 3 cts. Per 100 . . . . . . 2 50 

Address to the Voters of the United States. By George William 
Curtis. Per copy, I ct. 

The Selection of Laborers. By James M. Bugbee of the Mass. C. 
S. Commission. Per copy, 2 cts. Per 100, . . $1 25 

The same in German. Per copy, 2 cts. Per 100 . . .Si 25 

Report of the Special Committee on the present Condition of 
the Reform Movement, March 16 , 1887 . Per copy, 8 cts 
Per 100,.. . ... $5.00 

Address to the Clergy of all denominations. 

Constitution of the National Civil-Service Reform League. 

Also a few copies of some early publications. 


PUBLICATIONS OF THE NEW YORE CIVIL-SERVICE 
REFORM ASSOCIATION. 

II. The Beginning of the Spoils System in the National Gov¬ 
ernment, 1829 - 30 , (Reprinted, by permission', from Parton’s 
“Life of Andrew Jackson.”) Per copy, 5 cts. Per 100, $3 00 

III. The Spoils System and Civil-Service Reform in the Custom- 

House and Post-Office at New York. By Dorman B. Eaton. 
136 pages, 8vo. Per copy, 15 cts. Per 100, . '. $10 00 

IV. Civil-Service Reform in the New York Custom-House. By 

Willard Brown. Per copy, 5 cts. Per 100, . . . $3 00 

V. Term and Tenure of Office. By Dorman B. Eaton. Per copy, 25 cts. 
Second edition, abridged. Per copy, 15 cts Per ioo, . $10 00 

VII. The Danger of an Office-Holding Aristocracy. By E. L. 
Godkin. Per copy, 5 cts. Per 100, . . $3 00 


$5 00 
$5 00 
$5 00 
$5 00 




ADDRESS 


PREPARED FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING 


OF THE 


New York 


Civil-Service Reform Association 


(MAY 1, 1889), 


BY THE PRESIDENT 


GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS 

i» 


> o 

"> *> ) 

NEW YORK: 

PUBLISHED FOR THE 

CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM ASSOCIATION 

1889 . 






‘4 1 

I 






IN BXCH a Nr;d 

Hist, Soc, 

20$ OS 

9 



» 








Address to the Association 

PREPARED BY 

GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS, President 

AND READ BY THE SECRETARY, 


The interesting question at the annual meeting of this Asso¬ 
ciation is the condition and prospect of Civil Service Reform 
under the party change of administration which occurred on the 
4th of March. The question was not prominent in the canvass. 
The Democratic platform was reported in the Convention of the 
Democratic party by one of the strongest opponents of reform, 
as we understand it, and declared merely that the Democratic 
administration had enforced honest Civil-Service Reform. The 
Republican platform on the other hand contained the most 
comprehensive and careful declaration upon the Subject ever 
made in a national Convention and, not only pledged the party 
unreservedly to the policy of reform but pledged it not to break 
its pledges. The debate of the*campaign, however, turned upon 
the tariff, and reform in the Civil fService was mentioned only 
to accuse the late administration of its betrayal. After the 
campaign had opened, President Cleveland, in a special message 
transmitting to Congress the fourth annual report of the Civil 
Service Commission, congratulated the country upon “ the firm, 
sensible and practical foundation upon which, this reform now 
rests.” In his letter of acceptance General Harrison strongly 
and elaborately expressed his approval of reform and, as the 
party had pledged itself in the platform, he pledged himself in 
his letter, declaring “ It will be, however, my sincere purpose, if 
elected, to advance the reform.” 

Two months have now passed, and it will be useful to see 
how far under the new auspices reform lias advanced. It is our 



4 


duty in the interest of reform and without party predelictions to 
try performances by principles, and to test the fidelity of the 
administration to its voluntary pledges. This is to be done by 
us always, as it has always been done, not for the purpose of 
making a case for or against a party or an administration, but 
solely to ascertain the truth. The party of the present adminis¬ 
tration, raised the standard of reform as distinctly its policy, and 
as such the President accepted it. The party, therefore, and the 
friends of reform who sustained it at the polls, are justified in 
demanding from the Executive a course strictly in accord with 
the party pledges; and; in pursuing that course the President is 
equally justified in counting upon the support of his party in the 
persons of its recognized leaders and official committees, in the 
general sympathy and approval of its members, and in the 
uniform and steady encouragement of the party press. Our 
inquiry, therefore, is, simply, how fully during the first two months 
of the administration has the President illustrated what he 
declared to be his sincere purpose of advancing the reform and 
how strictly has the party held him to an honorable observance 
of its own voluntary pledge before the election. 

The chief obstruction to wholesome reform in the civil 
service is the usurpation of the appointing power by members of 
Congress. This power was carefully and purposely withheld from 
them by the Constitution, except as it required the advice and 
consent of the Senate to confirm and complete certain appoint¬ 
ments of the executive. President Hayes, in his first message, 
mentioned this usurpation, as the most serious obstacle to reform. 
President Garfield, when a representative in Congress, alleged 
that the pressure of Senators and Representatives for patronage 
obstructed the public business. Mr. Blaine in his review of 
Twenty Years in Congress, says: “no reform in the civil service 
will be valuable, that does not release members of Congress from 
the care and embarrassment of appointments.” Bills have been 
introduced to prohibit Congressional interference with the execu- 


5 


tive power of appointment, and Senator Edmunds formerly 
warmly favored such prohibition. But Congress has never 
seriously considered the subject. 

The successful party having proclaimed reform as its policy 
and Congressional usurpation being the first powerful obstacle 
that reform encounters, how have members of Congress enforced 
the party platform ? One fact will serve as a reply and an illus¬ 
tration. The Congressional delegation of Vermont in both 
houses, after duly deliberating upon applications for appointment 
decided how long the present incumbents should retain their 
places and who should be appointed to succeed them, thus 
gravely putting into form a flagrantly unconstitutional abuse of 
the kind which justly aroused general indignation when the late 
Postmaster General Vilas practically invited members of Congress 
to inform him what post office changes they desired. The regard 
for the reform policy displayed by members of Congress of the 
administration party is further illustrated by statements made by 
one of the most devoted organs of that party. Among the appli¬ 
cations to the President, was that of an ex-member of Congress 
to be appointed head of a bureau in which the opportunities of 
corrupt dealing are enormous, and his request was supported by a 
hundred members of the late House. Yet the man whose ap¬ 
pointment they urged had escaped expulsion from the House for 
corrupt practices only because a two-thirds vote was required for 
that purpose and he was then censured by a unanimous vote. 
He was subsequently shown by an investigation of the House to 
have acquired a large fraudulent claim through the Treasury, for 
which the Treasury sent his case to the Criminal Court of the 
District of Columbia. Another person who had been removed 
from office by President Grant for improper and presumably 
personal use of public money, was supported by a state delega¬ 
tion in Congress for a seat in the President’s Cabinet. 

The strict observance of the spirit and purpose of reform by 
the party at large is illustrated by the occupation of Washington 


6 


by a host of party office seekers and their unceasing assault upon 
the President for places: and by the instance of a notorious 
Congressional lobbyist who was pressed for appointment to an 
important position in the Post Office Department by one of the 
most prominent and influential of the party clubs. These are not 
solitary cases; they are examples of the general manner in which 
members of Congress, and the various party associations and 
active members of the party prove the sincerity of the platform 
pledges, and the party resolution to reform the civil service. 

What has been the course of the President towards this 
usurpation of Congress ? According, to the statement of four 
representatives from Missouri, the President requested them to 
serve as a committee on patronage and submit to him a list of 
persons for appointment to office, without any intimation that 
there were proper vacancies to be filled, but in obedience to the 
traditional assumption that with a change of administration there 
would be a general political change throughout the service. This 
is the executive commentary upon the declaration of the platform 
that “ spirit and purpose of reform should be observed in all 
executive appointments,” and upon his own declaration that 
“ only the interest of the public service should suggest removals 
from office.” In his inaugural address the President said that, as 
it was impossible for him to know many of the applicants for 
office, he must rely upon the information of others. This is 
undoubtedly necessary. But in every case of application he 
could ascertain whether there was a vacancy in the office sought 
or whether there was a reason connected with the honest and 
efficient conduct of the public service for making a vacancy by 
removal. Having satisfied himself upon these points he could 
then have avoided seeking advice of those whose recommenda¬ 
tions would be governed by political and personal considerations 
and not by regard for the service itself. This is almost univer¬ 
sally true of the advice of members of Congress, and in making 
them his chief and practically absolute advisers, the President 


7 


merely strengthens the main obstacle to reform. Unfortunately, 
those whether members of congress or not who are known to 
have been his advisers in many cases which would test his 
fidelity to the reform proclaimed by his party have been notorious 
enemies of reform. He said indeed in his inaugural address that 
“ honorable party service will certainly not be esteemed by me a 
disqualification for public office.” But this remark, fairly inter¬ 
preted by the party platform, signified that differences of party 
opinion would not disqualify honest and efficient public officers 
for retaining their places and that they might be secure against 
removal. If this was not its purpose, if it was designed to imply 
that such officers would be replaced by political opponents, it was 
a mere proclamation of the spoils dogma, and as such a complete 
abandonment of the principles of reform, of the party platform, 
and of the executive pledges. 

It is in strict conformity with the executive course thus far 
that it is announced that the Secretary of the Treasury has 
decided that when a state delegation in Congress has agreed 
upon “a slate” it shall be adopted without delay. The Secretary 
of the Interior, also, is reported to have said, that he is “ willing 
and anxious to see the Democrats turned out and their places 
filled by good Republicans,” and he declines to explain the 
remark. The Commissioner of Pensions in a public speech, in 
the presence of the Secretary of the Navy, stated with great 
applause that the President told him that in the conduct of his 
office “ he should remember the limitations of the law and that he 
must treat the boys liberally.” 

In the Post-Office Department, the great patronage depart- 
ment of the government, the President’s advice to the Commis¬ 
sioner of Pensions has been followed with unfaltering vigor. The 
fourth class postmasters of whom there are more than 50,000, 
whose offices under the spoils system are the universally dissemi¬ 
nated local centres of party politics are removed as fast as the 
necessary official details will permit. A cyclone of change rages 


8 


in this department. Ability, energy, zeal, fidelity in the service, 
do not avail against the demand for spoils. The appointment of 
the first Assistant-Postmaster General who conducts the removals 
was in itself an earnest that this demand would be heeded, and it 
is not surprising that the immense and incessant changes in the 
minor post-offices are stated to have been sometimes made at the 
rate of one thousand a week, or one in three minutes. It will 
not be alleged that this general and ceaseless sweep is required by 
the welfare of the service. It is not denied that it is simple 
political proscription. One of the strongest of the chief Republi¬ 
can organs says frankly “ the administration proposes without 
cant or false pretence to take the offices without making trumped- 
up, libellous charges against Democratic office-holders.” It was, 
nevertheless, the solemn declaration of the party of administration 
that “the spirit and purpose of the reform should be observed in 
all executive appointments.” And the spirit and purpose of the 
reform contemplate the removal of such officers as fourth-class 
postmasters solely for reasons connected with the service and 
excludes from their appointment all political considerations what¬ 
ever. 

While this contemptuous disregard of the pledges of the 
campaign is apparently universal in the treatment of the fourth- 
class post-offices, the events connected with the change in the 
chief Presidential post-office, that in New York, the most conspic¬ 
uous and important in the country, have commanded universal 
public attention. This office had become under experienced, 
efficient and courageous administration, one of the best post- 
offices in the world. It was the most powerful and conclusive 
practical argument for civil service reform, and the triumphant 
illustration of the wisdom of the reform policy proclaimed by the 
Republican platform. Reform in this office which, by its immense 
business and enormous revenues, stands at the head of the postal 
system in the country, could have been maintained and advanced 
more effectively than in any other way simply by the reappoint- 


9 


ment of the postmaster, not because of any vested right in the 
office but because he was confessedly the fittest person in the 
country for the duty. In the event of his personal inability, the 
sole method of maintaining the reform policy, but much more 
inadequately, was the appointment of a successor of the qualities 
and convictions of the postmaster, a successor who would be very 
difficult to discover. In the interest of reform this was the simple 
and obvious course and no other would have been suggested or 
considered. 

But the President decided that it should not be taken. He 
decided not to reappoint the postmaster under whom the office 
had been lifted out of mercenary politics and had become a con¬ 
clusive vindication of the Republican policy of civil service 
reform. He decided also not to replace him with a successor of 
similar training in the postal service, of similar faith in the 
reformed system, of similar courage to enforce it in defiance of 
the machine. He appointed a gentleman, who, whatever his 
excellences of character and his qualifications for public office, 
was completely and notoriously identified with the political evils 
and abuses from which the post-office had been emancipated. 
The President decided that a change should be made and the 
change was a total surrender to the spoils system. It is now 
alleged that the reason was the Postmaster’s illness. But the 
change as made shows conclusively that the illness was not the 
reason but a subsequent pretext, and that had the postmaster 
been in perfect health he would still have been removed. More 
than three weeks after the new appointment was made, although 
the postmaster was no longer living, his successor was still play¬ 
ing a game of party politics at Albany, and it was necessary to 
appoint a postmaster ad interim. The sole course by which the 
truthfulness of the alleged reason could be made probable would 
have been the appointment of a successor of the same convic¬ 
tions and purpose. 

It is understood that this course was urged upon the Execu- 


10 


tive by one of his warm supporters and party friends. The 
Vice-President, as well as the President, was elected upon a 
platform of reform. He is a resident of New York and he knew, 
as all other good citizens knew that the post-office was a citadel 
of the reform which the platforms demanded. He knew how 
capable, upright and satisfactory the postmaster was. Was the 
Vice-President, perhaps the party friend who warmly urged the 
re-appointment? The senior Senator from New York is also a 
resident of the city and equally familiar with the facts. He has 
often and strongly professed his interest in the reform. Was he 
the urgent friend who to promote reform strenuously advocated 
the fulfilment of the party pledge and the pledge of the Execu¬ 
tive ? It should seem that if either of these high officers of the 
government, with whom upon such subjects the President is 
known to have consulted, had made a simple and earnest state¬ 
ment of the facts, and insisted that the reform which had been 
the party policy and was already triumphant in the post-office 
should not be abandoned, the surrender might at least have been 
stayed. 

It is pleaded that reform may not be arrested because a large 
part of the subordinate places in the office are included in the 
classified service. But if the principles of the reformed service 
are still to prevail, in the office, why was not its control entrusted 
to a friend of reform ? It is true that in his inaugural address the 
President announced that every public officer, “ will be expected 
to enforce the civil service law fully and without evasion.” But 
how can the President, himself the chief of public officers, keep 
his own oath to enforce that law except by confiding its execu¬ 
tion to friends and not to foes ? How can the declared reform 
policy of the party of administration be carried out except by 
those who believe in it ? In a review of the course of the late 
President. Cleveland in the early months of his administration 
Senator Hoar of Massachusetts said truly, “ you cannot serve 
reform and the Democratic party.” Not less truly may it be said 



of the course thus far of President Harrison, you cannot serve 
reform and the Republican machine. 

President Lincoln was elected upon a platform of the exclu¬ 
sion of slavery from the territories. If he had appointed a slave¬ 
holder to be Governor of a territory, he would have been justly 
accounted recreant to the principles and policy of his party. 
President Harrison by his action in regard to the New York 
post-office has brought into public contempt one of the funda¬ 
mental declarations of the platform of his party. If his object had 
been to prostitute the public service in order to strengthen a party 
machine, he could have done nothing more effective. His course 
in this instance is a signal illustration of the abuse which his party 
platform condemns and* which civil service reform that the plat¬ 
form adopts as a party policy, is intended to correct. 

The circumstances of the death of Mr. Pearson, immediately 
following his removal were profoundly pathetic. His fatal illness 
was undoubtedly stimulated and aggravated by his heroic struggle 
to do his official duty against tremendous odds. His position and 
course honestly supported by his superior officers and encouraged 
in other offices would have been fatal to the venal politics and the 
mercenary prostitution of patronage which are the foundations of 
the machine. In fighting him the spoils system was fighting for 
its life. His official destruction was therefore the common cause 
of the machine in both parties. He stood firmly for the honest 
service of the people, his opponents, for their own selfish power. 
Unstained by those who meant to force him to retire, dogged by 
their emissaries seeking plausible pretexts for his removal, he re¬ 
solved, if life were granted, not to yield, and for many a month, 
he silently fought the good fight while his life surely ebbed away. 
Those who without the responsibility of office advocate reform 
upon what they believe to be sound and simple principles may be 
easily condemned as sentimentalists and theorists. But the man 
who in a great office, amid every kind of malicious obstruction 
and active hostility, with unquailing steadfastness and the sacri- 


12 


fice of health and life, demonstrates the practical efficiency of 
those principles, furnishes the living and resistless argument by 
which great causes at last prevail. Dying at his post such a man 
is as truly a martyr to his country as the hero who falls in battle. 
We shall be indeed unworthy Americans, if a character so pure, a 
life so spotless, and a public service so great, do not consecrate us 
more devotedly than ever to the cause for which he died. 

“ It will be my sincere purpose if elected,” said the President 

in accepting his nomination “ to advance the reform.” The word 

reform as used by the President and in the platform of his party 

has a definite meaning which was of course distinctly understood 

by him and by those who made the platform. It was not limited 

to the faithful execution of the civil service reform law, but was 

% 

expressly declared to include in its spirit all appointments. It 
means the exclusion of politics from the great multitude of places 
in the civil service: It means dismissal from such places, only for 
reasons connected with the welfare of the service. It means that 
the service is not to be refilled with political partisans merely 
because of a party change of administration. This was the reform 
which the party adopted and the President pledged himself to ad¬ 
vance. The annals of two months from which I have selected 
characteristic illustrations show how it has advanced thus far. 
We have certainly never shown a disposition to judge any Execu¬ 
tive unfairly or without reasonable regard to the difficulties of the 
situation, as our comments upon the administrations of Presidents 
Arthur and Cleveland plainly attest. It is undeniable that im¬ 
mediate and total refor-m of an evil system is not to be expected 
and that serious mistakes and inconsistencies, unwise appoint¬ 
ments and equally unwise removals are compatible with an honest 
desire and purpose of reform. But flagrant and deliberate viola¬ 
tions of sound principles of the public service are not to be ex¬ 
cused or palliated by the plea that they are mistakes and incon¬ 
sistencies. Errors are pardonable but wrong acts consciously 
performed are not errors: they are offences for which the offender 
is justly responsible. 


\ 


If the President regards himself as a trustee of his party lie is 
trustee of a party which adopted civil service reform as its policy 
and declared that its spirit and purpose should be observed in all 
executive appointments. Yet not in one conspicuous instance, so 
far as I know, has the President observed that spirit and purpose, 
or ordered them to be observed. I do not mean of course that he 
has appointed no honest or capable officers but that he has not 
respected the principle that such officers in places which are not 
political, should not be removed for political reasons; nor do I 
know a single member of the Cabinet, a single Senator or Repre¬ 
sentative in Congress, or, with very few honorable exceptions like 
Mr. Theodore Roosevelt of New York, a single recognized local 
leader of the dominant party, who has publicly insisted that the 
declared policy of the party on this subject shall be respected. 
The administration senators and representatives who lingered in 
Washington after the adjournment of Congress did not remain to 
take care that the party policy of reform should be enforced, but, 
as office brokers and peddlers of patronage, to secure places for 
political workers, to procure party advantages, and to foster per¬ 
sonal ambitions. They were not engaged in promoting the public 
welfare by excluding politics from the public service where politics 
are impertinent, but in tightening and strengthening by patronage 
a party machine. Meanwhile the party clubs, Leagues and Com¬ 
mittees, all over the Union, have shown by their conduct the con¬ 
fident expectation that no regard would be paid by the adminis¬ 
tration to the platform promises and pledges under which in the 
campaign the support of intelligent citizens friendly to reform was 
solicited. With very few honorable exceptions the press of the 
party has demanded the usual political proscription in the civil 
service, or it has acquiesced in the practical contempt of the de¬ 
clared party policy, or it has truculently defended the plainest 
neglect of principle as real reform. The chief party organ in the 
country frankly defended the overthrow of reform in the New 
York Post-office by the assertion that, “ It is certain that party 


14 


organization cannot be maintained by ignoring party leaders,” 
which is the old and fundamental plea for the spoils system. 

The only signs of party interest in the party declarations that 
1 have observed are first the statement that a representative from 
Massachusetts has presented a petition of the merchants of Boston 
asking that the Collector of that port may serve out his term; a 
proceeding which assumes, and not unnaturally, that the Collector 
for political reasons would be summarily dismissed. Let that little 
candle throw its beams as far as possible. Second: It is reported 
from Washington, although there is no other notification, that the 
President does not propose the removal of satisfactory officers 
until the expiration of their terms. Should this rumor prove to be 
correct, and some such officers are not yet removed, such a course 
would be so far a distinct measure of reform, as it would assure 
the continuance of some officers throughout almost the term of the 
administration. It would destroy the precedent of what is called 
a clean sweep and demonstrate that a general party change of 
incumbents is necessary neither to good service nor to party or¬ 
ganization. This, however, is but the rumor of an intention. We 
are concerned, now, with the actual conduct of the executive, and 
I doubt if any candid observer of that conduct would declare that 
at last a party has come into control of the administration which, 
according to its solemn assertion that it would not violate its 
pledges, has thus far proved that it means honestly to advance 
Civil-Service Reform. 

In what I have said I have tested the administration not 
only by the principles of reform but by the specific declarations 
and pledges of the party which it represents. Our Association is 
strictly non-partisan and I venture to say on its behalf that, what¬ 
ever may be the personal political sympathies of its members, 
they would all have equally rejoiced if it could be said truthfully 
that the declarations of the dominant party were in process of 
faithful fulfilment. It would be a vital error, however, to suppose 
that the situation indicates profound public indifference to reform. 


It shows only that we have constantly asserted that neither party 
as a party is a civil-service reform party. Their declarations of 
interest, however, are tributes to a powerful public sentiment 
which has already exacted from both parties certain great and 
definite gains for reform. That sentiment is constantly increasing 
and constantly weakening the force of party ties. The dangers 
to free institutions which the Republican platform declared to 
lurk in the power of official patronage, become only the more 
evident when the public pledges of a party are deliberately con¬ 
demned by its administration. But the public intelligence and 
conscience to which those pledges appeal are not unobservant of 
practical neglect of them. The political degradation and corrup¬ 
tion, the ruin of the proper function of party in a republic, the 
destruction of the self-respect of public employees, the vast and 
increasing venality of elections, constitute the dangers which are 
denounced by the Republican platform. The more plainly these 
dangers are seen and the character of the system revealed from 
which they chiefly spring, the more thoroughly aroused will be 
the public mind, and the more certain and complete will be the 
remedy.* 


* Since this address was delivered the President by the appointment 
of Mr. Theodore Roosevelt of New York and Mr. Hugh S. Thompson of 
South Carolina, and the retention of Mr. Charles Lyman of Connecticut, as 
Civil Service Commissioners, has so far redeemed the pledges of the Repub¬ 
lican platform and of his own letter of acceptance. The excellence of this act 
is heartily acknowledged by the sincerest friends of reform, who would be the 
first to hail frankly and unreservedly, a course consistent with its spirit and 
promise. 








. 




. 

gn 

' V 1 

- 

. 
















Publications of the New York Civil-Service Reform Ass'n. 

Daniel Webster and the Spoils System. An extract from Senator 
Bayard's oration at Dartmouth College, June, 18S2. Per copy, 3 cts. 
Per 100, . . . . . . . Si 50 

The ‘‘Pendleton Bill.” Bill to Regulate and Improve the Civil Service 
of the United States, as_ approved. Per copy, 3 cts. Per 100, $1 50 

What has been done in New York and may be done elsewhere. 

Per copy, I ct. Per 100, - 

The Reform of the Civil Service. Per copy, 1 ct. Per 100, 

What is the Civil Service? (Card for distribution). 

A Primer of Civil-Service Reform. Per 100, 

Bishop Potter’s Centennial Address. Per 100, 

Annual Report of the C. S. R. A. of N, Y., May, 1883. Per copy, 3 cts. 


30 cts. 
30 cts. 


$1 00 
I 00 


The same for 1885 . 
The same for 1886 . 
The same for 1887 . 
The same for 1888 . 
The same for 1889 


Per copy, 
Per co;.y, 
Per copv. 


3 cts - 
3 cts - 
3 cts. 
3 cts. 
5 cts. 


Per copy, - •' - - - ' 

Per copy, Ci - - - - 

Hon. Augustus Schoonmaker upon the Merit System. 

The Workingmens’ Interest in Civil Service Reform. Address by 
■lion Henry A. Richmond. 

Constitution and By-Laws of New York Association 

Also a few copies of some early publications. 

MISCELLANEOUS, 

Civil Service in Great Britain. By Dorman B. Eaton. Per copy, 25 cts. 

The Competitive Test. By Edward M. Shepard. Per copy, - 5 cts - 

The Meaning of Civil-Service Reform. By Edward O. .Craves, 
Per copy, - - - ' ' "3 c! - s - 

Civil-Service Examinations. Being question papers with ^actual an¬ 
swers of successful and unsuccessful candidates. By R. R. Bowker. 
Per copy, - - - - " 12 cls ' 

Report of the U. S. Civil-Service Commission, 1884. 

The same for 1888. 

Report of the N. Y. Civil Service Commission, 1886- 
The same for 1887. 

The same for 1389. 

Also a few other miscellaneous publications. 

Orders for the publications will be filled bv W lLT.IAM Ports, Secietaiv, 
33 & 35 Liberty St., New York, or by G P. Putnam’S Sons, 27 and 29 
West 23d St., New York. 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



JOHN JAY. 

CARL SCHURZ, 
FRANCIS C. BARLOW, 
ORLANT I* E. POTTER, 


President. 

GEORGE WILLIAM CURTIS. 

I 7 cc-PrrsiJer.is. 

WILLIAM E. PODGE. 


0 028 070 938 


D. WILL'.5 JAMES, 
OSWALD OTTENPORFER. 
H 'RACE E. DEMING. 


Secretary. 

WILLIAM POTTS. 

Treasu ncr. 

IRA BURSLEY. 

Px::. di : Co *: mi tree. 
eyerett ?. wheeler. Chairman. 


SILAS w. BURT. 
EDWARD CARY, 
CHARLES COLLIN'S. 
GEO. WALTON' GREEN. 
WALTER HOWE, 

A. R. MACDONOUGH. 
ALEX. MA _KAY-SMITH. 


GEO. HAVEN PUTNAM. 
THEO'ORE ROOSEVELT. 
ANSON PHELPS STOKES, 
WM. H. THOMSON, 
WILLIAM L. TRKNHOLM. 
HORACE WHITE, 

F. W. WHi: RIDGE. 


Pi plication c or. mdttee. 

Charles collins. Chairman. geo. w lliam curt is. 


E. L. GODKIN. 


GEORGE R. BISHOP, 
WILLIAM POTTS. 














Committee on Legislation. 

eked. w. whitridge. Chairman, carl schurz, 

GEO. WALTON GREEN. ELIAL F. HALL. 

EVERETT' P. WHEELER. 

Audit: n * Committer. 

o 

HOR.ACE white. Chairman, Charles collins. 

Committee t>n Pi'trice. 

anson phelps stoker. Chairman, edward b. Merrill. 

ORLANDO B. POTTER. J. HAMPDEN ROBB. 

SAMUEL P. AVERY. 

Committee on Affiliated Pocieties. 

Jacob f. miller, Chairman. william potts. 

HORACE E DEMING, HAMILTON B. TOMPKINS. 

HENRY T. TERRY. 

Committee on Chi I-Seri ice Examinations. 
dorman b. eaton. Ci. airman, a. r. macdonough, 

WILLIAM L. trenholm. CARL SCHURZ. 
















C. W. WATSON. 



